and if universities would train a new generation of scientists in public outreach ... "

Hmm, I wonder if they give any advice to theists who should keep quiet about science. Since much of the criticisms of theism and religious belief is a direct response to fundamentalist beliefs and lies about science, it should be those theists on which the blame is heaped.

There are many scientists who accommodate religious belief with no need to distort science. The problem is theists who cannot and will not accommodate science.

In PART, yes ...

Narrowly rigid Guys like Philip Johnson, ( The Late ) Jerry Falwell,

Rick Dawkins, et al.

ALL contribute to The PROBLEM ..

Falwell, certainly, but professor Dawkins is exactly the opposite of Falwellm and he has done an enormous job of promoting science and scientific understandings of issues. You'd know that if ever read any of his books.

Ironicaly,

BOTH Imagine(d)

that they were doing a SUPERB Job

of teaching REAL Science,

but BOTH fall/fell FLAT-FLAT-FLAT

by WRONGLY teaching an In-Compatibility

of The Natural Sciences and Religious Faith ...

Richard Dawkins is a real scientist and a very compassionate, ethical and decent human being. He is a great thinker and has made a significant contribution to discussions on a range of subjects in both educational institutions and in public. His books have informed, educated and raised the consciousnesses of millions of people in various areas. Richard Dawkins is a humanist and a humanitarian - these qualities come through in all his written works.

Jerry Falwell was a crazed bigot. His ideas and beliefs were on a par with those of the Taliban. He did a great deal of damage to the reputation of Christianity througout the world.

The natural sciences, over the last few centuries, have slowly but surely marginalised theists' concepts of god. That is a fact.

Jerry Falwell damaged the reputation of Christianity to non Christians.

I'm a non-scientist, and he didn't damage the rep of science to me. What I suspect you mean here is that Dawkins' criticisms of religion gave some theists a reason to justify their bias against science since Dawkins is a scientist.

Both have marginalised people who would otherwise no be opposed to either subject.

The difference is that Dawkins has valid claims and valid arguments. Falwell never did.

I'm a non-scientist, and he didn't damage the rep of science to me. What I suspect you mean here is that Dawkins' criticisms of religion gave some theists a reason to justify their bias against science since Dawkins is a scientist.

You could say that his criticisms did that. But a more insightful way to put it might be that his criticisms (and those of others) made some theists feel that they have to choose between scientific research and their way of life. Which, if unnecessary, is not the best move.

I would love for people to know what I know. I'm just not certain if I would like them to find out how I found out.

You could say that his criticisms did that. But a more insightful way to put it might be that his criticisms (and those of others) made some theists feel that they have to choose between scientific research and their way of life. Which, if unnecessary, is not the best move.

If some theists are so insecure and unsophisticated in their faith, then they simply don't have the intellectual chops to make sense of science anyway. The ignorant tend to stay ignorant because they don't recognize how little they know. And for the record, belief is not knowledge.

You could say that his criticisms did that. But a more insightful way to put it might be that his criticisms (and those of others) made some theists feel that they have to choose between scientific research and their way of life. Which, if unnecessary, is not the best move.

If some theists are so insecure and unsophisticated in their faith, then they simply don't have the intellectual chops to make sense of science anyway. The ignorant tend to stay ignorant because they don't recognize how little they know. And for the record, belief is not knowledge.

and if universities would train a new generation of scientists in public outreach ... "

Hmm, I wonder if they give any advice to theists who should keep quiet about science. Since much of the criticisms of theism and religious belief is a direct response to fundamentalist beliefs and lies about science, it should be those theists on which the blame is heaped.

There are many scientists who accommodate religious belief with no need to distort science. The problem is theists who cannot and will not accommodate science.

In PART, yes ...

Narrowly rigid Guys like Philip Johnson, ( The Late ) Jerry Falwell,

Rick Dawkins, et al.

ALL contribute to The PROBLEM ..

Ironicaly,

BOTH Imagine(d)

that they were doing a SUPERB Job

of teaching REAL Science,

but BOTH fall/fell FLAT-FLAT-FLAT

by WRONGLY teaching an In-Compatibility

of The Natural Sciences and Religious Faith ...

Jerry Falwell damaged the reputation of Christianity to non Christians.

that America's future is deeply endangered by the scientific illiteracy of its citizens

The scientific illiteracy of American citizens is a self correcting problem. Scientific illiterates will not be able to compete in a modern technological society and will follow in the fossil footsteps of other non-compteitive species. This is known as bad luck.

and if universities would train a new generation of scientists in public outreach ... "

Hmm, I wonder if they give any advice to theists who should keep quiet about science. Since much of the criticisms of theism and religious belief is a direct response to fundamentalist beliefs and lies about science, it should be those theists on which the blame is heaped.

There are many scientists who accommodate religious belief with no need to distort science. The problem is theists who cannot and will not accommodate science.

In PART, yes ...

Narrowly rigid Guys like Philip Johnson, ( The Late ) Jerry Falwell,

Rick Dawkins, et al.

ALL contribute to The PROBLEM ..

Ironicaly,

BOTH Imagine(d)

that they were doing a SUPERB Job

of teaching REAL Science,

but BOTH fall/fell FLAT-FLAT-FLAT

by WRONGLY teaching an In-Compatibility

of The Natural Sciences and Religious Faith ...

Jerry Falwell damaged the reputation of Christianity to non Christians.

that America's future is deeply endangered by the scientific illiteracy of its citizens

The scientific illiteracy of American citizens is a self correcting problem. Scientific illiterates will not be able to compete in a modern technological society and will follow in the fossil footsteps of other non-compteitive species. This is known as bad luck.

and if universities would train a new generation of scientists in public outreach ... "

Hmm, I wonder if they give any advice to theists who should keep quiet about science. Since much of the criticisms of theism and religious belief is a direct response to fundamentalist beliefs and lies about science, it should be those theists on which the blame is heaped.

There are many scientists who accommodate religious belief with no need to distort science. The problem is theists who cannot and will not accommodate science.

In PART, yes ...

Narrowly rigid Guys like Philip Johnson, ( The Late ) Jerry Falwell,

Rick Dawkins, et al.

ALL contribute to The PROBLEM ..

Ironicaly,

BOTH Imagine(d)

that they were doing a SUPERB Job

of teaching REAL Science,

but BOTH fall/fell FLAT-FLAT-FLAT

by WRONGLY teaching an In-Compatibility

of The Natural Sciences and Religious Faith ...

Jerry Falwell damaged the reputation of Christianity to non Christians.